13 ms·

Parties basically switched sides this election. From 2008 to now: - Pro war party: Repubs -> Dems - Dick Cheney party: Repubs -> Dems - Elitist party: Repubs ->

Parties basically switched sides this election. From 2008 to now: - Pro war party: Repubs -> Dems - Dick Cheney party: Repubs -> Dems - Elitist party: Repubs -> Dems - Working class party: Dems -> Repubs - Pro free speech party: Dems -> Repubs - Bigger spending party: Dems -> Repubs - Skeptical of large corps: Dems -> Repubs There are some issues where they haven't switched (eg. abortion)

croisillon 2y ago
Liz Cheney voted with the GOP for the four long Trump years, how is she not a Republican
- psychlops 2y ago
  It's become evident that Cheney's will wear whichever color funds more war.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Because the partied seem to have largely flipped when it comes to platform and Cheney followed the platform rather than the party allegiance.
dtquad 2y ago
How are the repubs not pro-war? They are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine. They are pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The republicans I know have pretty varying opinions on those two wars. One pretty common thread is that they don't want us involved though, regardless of which side of the wars they align with.
  - philistine 2y ago
    Ultimately those opinions will not matter. The president has full control of the State department and will align with the autocrats who stroke his ego: Putin and Netanyahu. Expect the money to stop flowing to Ukraine, and to keep going to Israel, and try to divine a logic for that.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Thankfully the state department doesn't hold the purse strings, though the democratic party did so poorly that Congress may still be willing to approve whatever spending the Trump wants.
  - TOMDM 2y ago
    Then call them what they are, isolationists not anti war then. Carrying water for Russia's invasion of Ukraine; opposing aid for Ukraine is incompatible.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Sure, you could call them isolation if you prefer. Many of the republicans I know sit in a gray area in between, they definitely don't want us involved but they also don't have a strong opinion on the wars either way and see them as someone else's fight. That definitely isn't the main narrative I see in the media, but I personally know very few republicans who care strongly about one side of either war. That view is a bit like a libertarian anti-war view in my opinion. Its antiwar without attempting to get involved in anyone else's business.
      - navigate8310 2y ago
        Basically questioning tax-money spendings
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    Trump is going to send more money and armaments to Israel and not one of them will object because he will abandon Ukraine and they’ll all hold that up as an amazing thing.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Maybe, at which point I expect their being pretty hypocritical. I wouldn't begin to say one side of either war is in the absolute right or wrong though. War is messy, terrible, and bloody. It'd never as simply as right vs wrong or good vs evil.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        When has hypocrisy ever caused self reflection when people are playing the team sport that is politics? It’s always “your hypocrisy is worse than my hypocrisy” because even if they admit the hypocrisy exists (not a given) they just chalk it up to “both sides.“ We’ve seen this song and dance for a decade straight.
  - cglace 2y ago
    All of the Trump voters I know think we should obliterate Iran.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Here's 1 that doesn't think that. Maybe you just don't know enough Trump voters?
      - cglace 2y ago
        I live in Georgia; my family is from South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida. Try again.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Well that's interesting. I live in a very red area and have never heard this. At best I could hear it said as a joke, I don't know anyone that would actually think we should do that.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  They are certainly more anti-war than the Dems right now
- siffin 2y ago
  They have managed to have themselves perceived as anti-war, which is an obvious untruth.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  True they are pro-israel, but so is most of the dems. It's the one topic that actually gets bipartisan support. repubs aren't pro russia. they are just anti-getting-involved in there.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    >repubs aren’t pro russia They sure are for the right price.
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      > repubs aren’t pro russia This only matter if we think that the Republican party still exists, and was not silently replaced by other party carrying its blood stained skin. Is GOP still alive? Is a serious question. I have a lot of doubts about the real independence of republicans in this situation. The man at charge is obviously pro Russia and the republicans can't do a s*t about this. They will be replaced one by one. Anything that would try will be pushed out of the road.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        GQP/MAGA is the party now. Old GOP was definitely swiftly executed. I heard Mitch McConnell called a RINO a few weeks ago. That says it all.
        pvaldes 2y ago
        Is an interesting case in fact. In my opinion USA democracy is clearly into a transitional phase to became a monarchy. I would not bet money against Donald I becaming the first King of America. All ingredients are yet over the table. 1) Cult to the leader, Image printed on coins, posters, everywhere on TV and media. Fanatism 2) Religion serves the King. Divine intervention to justify power take. "God choose me in a divine mission to fix this mess" is a central part of the speech in every new monarch crowning. Trump is yet talking about that. 3) Exceptionalism and isolationalism, we are the best country and is cold and rainy out of my frontiers. Frontiers are very important for Kings as symbolic element of protection. 4) Extravagant behavior. Trump did all sort of outrageous things that would put anybody else in the jail, but got unscathed all the time. All kings do this. This is made to reinforce the idea of a special "superhuman" status. 4) Laws. This special status imply also that the law does not apply to the King and people will be carefully taught about that. 5) Killing competitors to the crown ("Hang Mike Pence" was metaphorical, but also works in a symbolic plane). 6) Wicht hunt behavior. As the King can't do wrong, scapegoats are required, normally on minorities. 7) Useful idiots. Extensive use of expendable pawns that are promised to enter the court, became famous, gain influence etc if they do a favor for the King. Those promises will never deliver. 8) Sucession. I would bet that the next elections will not have Trump as a frontman but a son of Trump will be the sure and only candidate. Every step will be taken to assure that not other has an opportunity inside the party. There will be a strong temptation and a lot of space to cheat in elections also. 9) And a component that is not still here, but I expect to see in the future is to disarm people that could pose a treat, weapon control but only for a part of the population. All Kings do this.
- tekknik 2y ago
  Boy what an over generalization. Most are anti palestine because Hamas is a terrorist. Sorry I won’t support terrorism and support what Israel is doing. I support Ukraine because I know what Russia needs Ukraine for. Do I want to see people shooting? No because I’ve been to war and seen how ugly it is. Sometimes you have to defend yourself though. I still voted for Trump.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    > Sorry I won’t support terrorism and support what Israel is doing. This just means you support State Terrorism instead of non-state terrorism. > Sometimes you have to defend yourself though. Unless you're Palestinian. In which case defending yourself isn't authorized. Just ask the West Bank residents being regularly killed by armed illegal settlers pre-October 7th how laying down their arms has worked out for them.
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      I'm trying to follow your logic, seriously please help me. You are suggesting that murdering people at a music festival and kidnapping children and kidnapping elderly and beheading civilians is a form of defense against other people hurting other people in a different geographic region? Please, tell me I'm wrong and do tell me how you see things.
      - CapricornNoble 2y ago
        > You are suggesting that murdering people at a music festival and kidnapping children and kidnapping elderly and beheading civilians is a form of defense against other people hurting other people in a different geographic region? I'm suggesting murdering people at a music festival occupies the same space, morally, as bombing entire families with aviation ordnance. One of them is painted as wrong, and the other isn't, because state terrorism is tacitly approved in the Western mainstream information space....depending on the perpetrators. When Hamas (or Russia) does it, it's "kidnapping", when Israel does it, they are "detaining suspects". From August 2023 (before the Hamas attack) AP News was reporting Israel had 1,200 detainees without charges. Why aren't they called hostages? ( https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinians-west-bank-793a3b2a1ce8439d08756da8c63e5435 https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinia... ) The two regions are both enclaves of Palestine, engaged in a joint struggle for emancipation. There were 100+ Palestinians killed in the West Bank in 2022: ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63073541 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63073541 ) and 200+ killed in 2023 before the October 7th attack ( https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1139922 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1139922 ). Clearly disarmament and NOT being ruled by Hamas is not working for the West Bank Palestinians. I'm sure if you asked any of the various Palestinian militant groups, yes they are engaged in a joint defense of their people. After all, the primary purpose of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation was to try to capture enough Israelis to force a prisoner exchange and get their own people back (similar to snatching Gilad Shalit and trading just him for 1,000 Palestinians). They suffered from "catastrophic success" mixed with undisciplined follow-on echelons (Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well as others) who inflicted far more civilian damage than just a cross-border snatch & grab....and they are definitely paying for it in blood now.
- beeboobaa6 2y ago
  [flagged]
- rcstank 2y ago
  Anecdotally, I’ve seen many republicans be anti-Israel and anti-Palestine, anti-Ukraine and anti-Russia. Their stance is pro-America.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    Yup, me too.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  Arguably being pro-Israel is anti-war. Israel's current conflict is the direct result of several entities starting a war with her last October. Suggesting that Israel should not fight back is promoting the idea of war as a means of getting what one wants.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Nah, Americans aren't that dumb. We send billions and billions to Israel every year, for what? Most Americans want to stop being a blank check for them to bomb whoever and then get mad, deplete their resources, and ask for more when they get attacked back
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      I'm glad that you feel that way. You'll be relieved that those pushing the "Israel bombs whoever and then get mad" agenda was lying to you. We've been (we as in my family) absorbing rocket fire for literately years - hardly been bombing every time we get mad. It took something egregious - literally beheadings and burning of babies (I personally know at least two families whose babies were burned to death) - to ignite this war. My daughter's classmate was murdered in his home along with both his sisters and both their parents. My son's summer camp counselor was kidnapped, his body was later retrieved. Shall I go on? What would you have your country do under these circumstances? Your heart is in the right place. But you've been manipulated.
      - marxisttemp 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - aprilthird2021 2y ago
        > You'll be relieved that those pushing the "Israel bombs whoever and then get mad" agenda was lying to you. No they weren't. Absorbing bombs when you have a missile defense system that ensures zero to tens of casualties, then responding with the same bombs when you know they will cause hundreds to thousands of casualties is doing exactly what I said. No one lied to me. I saw the facts and saw my money being sent to people who think this is okay, and like every other sane American, I said it should stop, and soon it will. All of this was a decade ago, back when Israelis used to set up lawn chairs on hills overlooking Gaza and cheer as bombs dropped. Tell me how this was a lie too: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer... Look, all this aside, you're probably a nice guy. You're probably worried for your family.i get that. I've been there. But 20 years and trillions of dollars spent on wars that did nothing to secure us, nothing to change the region, taught me that fighting back isn't always the path to success. You have to fight right, and you have to fight smart too. The US had a ton of goodwill from the world after 9/11 and squandered it so bad that Trump, who has now been elected resoundingly twice as a Republican, said on stage, in front of tons of Republicans that Republican President Bush was one of the worst presidents and his wars were disastrous mistakes and we should have never gone. Cheney, who architected those wars, and his family, are now global pariahs basically. Lashing out and wasting money and causing more problems and expecting a wallet refill? I saw that for 2 decades, and I'm done with it here, and I'm done with paying for it somewhere else too
- thehappypm 2y ago
  The GOP would rather the Ukraine war end (probably with Russia winning).
JansjoFromIkea 2y ago
RE: "Skeptical of large corps" do you mean their voter base or their actions? Because I seriously doubt whoever is replacing Lina Khan is going to be more skeptical of large corporations
- dtquad 2y ago
  JD Vance said he supports the anti-US-big-tech campaign of Lina Khan and that he thinks she has a place in the new admin. They will most likely break up Google and Meta for "pushing the woke agenda" but are smart enough to hide behind Lina Khan's anti-US-big-tech arguments that has populist support on both wings of the political spectrum.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    This will clearly happen because Pence was so influential in Trump’s first term, and Trump also followed through on so much of his and/or his vice president’s claims in the first term.
    - stuckkeys 2y ago
      You cant be serious lol.
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        I read it as almost certainly sarcasm (usually when people use “clearly” like that, it’s sarcasm).
        inemesitaffia 2y ago
        I disagree with him. Peter Thiel supported Trump before but the vice was from the religious part of the sector. Vance is Thiels man. And Theil wants to be a Supreme Court Judge.
        2y ago
MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
Trump doesn’t care about abortion at all, yet for some reason Dems think it‘ll be Handmaid‘s Tale. States can do what they want.
- ks2048 2y ago
  Trump doesn't care about anything but himself, of course. But the judges he appoints do. And if his first term is repeated, he'll again just appoint the far-right judges that republicans hand to him. You're right, some things will be left up to states and I think we'll see more state divisions and self-sorting of people among states. On abortion, it will be interesting to watch republicans fight over trying to push a nationwide ban. Trump is savvy and powerful enough to squash that, probably.
- kzrdude 2y ago
  It's more important to look at what Trump does than what he says. Because he says whatever he thinks people will like. He's a chronic liar, by the way. Trump did in fact enable the judges who changed the law on abortion.
_heimdall 2y ago
I'm surprised more people hadn't noticed this switch during this campaign cycle. It seemed pretty clear to me, especially coming off the heals of a pandemic response that saw the democratic party flip so dramatically to blindly trusting big pharma and reaching for law & order as a pandemic response strategy. The best explanation I heard recently was that Trump in 2016 made a play to pull working class Americans into the Republican party. The party basically clinched its teeth and looked the other way, knowing that they either accept the voters or risk a real problem. Since then the Republican party has largely embraced the working class while the Democratic party continues to favor more and more towards the rich voters and massive corporations, finishing off the full party flip.
- dtquad 2y ago
  >Since then the Republican party has largely embraced the working class while the Democratic party continues to favor more and more towards the rich voters and massive corporations, finishing off the full party flip. Insane to say this when Trump and Republicans want to lower taxes for the rich and even suggest "abolishing the IRS".
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Cutting taxes on the rich helps the rich, it doesn't directly hurt the working class. More importantly, Trump and the Republicans embracing the working class has everything to do with rhetoric and who they target for voting and very little to do with policies they actually enact. Most voters end up caring about what is said and pay little attention to what is done.
    - wholinator2 2y ago
      > it doesn't directly hurt the working class Until the programs and benefits that the working class relies on are cut because "who's gonna pay for it?!" And "we've gotta reduce the deficit!". Then the working class will be directly and painfully effected because they are the ones that need tax credits and Healthcare options and foodstamps and support! Who's gonna pay for it? The people that already have enough! I understand the human urge to hold on to everything you have. But when did we stop caring about contributing to a functioning society?
ks2048 2y ago
I think this could be correct if only look at what they say rather than what they do. We'll see if Republicans in control are anti-war, anti-elite, pro free speech, pro-working class, anti-large-corps, etc. I know where I'd place my bets on policies.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kubectl_h 2y ago
    > "I just don't see Trump being a warmonger, but Kamala, she very well could be." It's not Trump that will be the "warmonger", it's the people he empowers. Trump is a shallow personality -- all he wants is attention, he does not have an ideology. For the boring part of actually enacting policy he defers to supplicants and this time around his supplicants are more unserious and self-interested than the first time around. This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      > all he wants is attention, he does not have an ideology This is not demonstrably true. He's had a consistent ideology since the beginning- MAGA and now MAHA too. I used to think Trump was shallow, for maybe a few months in 2015. The problem with that is if you think Trump is shallow, it means all the people who voted for him and love him are stupid. In fact, you implied you think this: > This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack. Your operating philosophy cannot be that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Your point about supplicants can be equally applied to Kamala.
      - kubectl_h 2y ago
        > Your operating philosophy cannot be that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. I don't think people are stupid. I think they don't think things through. MAGA is not a coherent political policy. Project 2025 is at least soundly documented and is probably the set of policies we'll see out of this admin. I googled MAHA and it doesn't seem like a thing beyond a boilerplate website and twitter account nobody follows and some videos from RFK. Again, not a policy, just a platitude like MAGA and an unserious one at that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bitsandboots 2y ago
> Pro war I was surprised to see Trump not entertain much war during his last term but I don't agree. Both parties equally entertain war and I fear any Republican anti-war this time will be pro-Russia and further destabilize the world. > Working class party I think the voters see it that way and it's a real win for Republicans since they're the opposite and get away with it for who knows what reason > Pro free speech I've absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion > Skeptical of large corps I'd love for that to be true but I bet they'll be just fine with any large corp that helps them remain in control. And yes, the entire topic of religion has not only remained the same but perhaps gotten worse.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  > Both parties equally entertain war and I fear any Republican anti-war this time will be pro-Russia and further destabilize the world. Trump is emphatically anti-war and he's dragging the Republican party kicking and screaming to that position. Just look at his relatively low-war presidency and his rhetoric on war throughout the years. > I've absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion Free speech? The Dems are calling left and right for censorship. The only person that has stopped it is Elon Musk, now a vital facet of the Trump coalition. I have no idea how you can make the case the Dems are the free speech party. > I'd love for that to be true but I bet they'll be just fine with any large corp that helps them remain in control. Again, this is something that the MAGA types are dragging the Republicans kicking and screaming. MAGA abhors big pharma, whereas Dems trust it. Was the opposite in 2008 or even 2012. We like to discuss Trump so much, but a lot of this shift is actually the Dems moving their positions too.
  - bitsandboots 2y ago
    I guess you've not been paying attention to MAGA types who equally as much want censorship and who are for any person, corporation, or government who will help them to further their goals on that front. I would love for "MAGA" to come to represent the genuinely good things that Trump said on the campaign trail for 2016, and none of the bad things are associated with the those who claim to be part of "MAGA", but fool me twice shame on me.
schmorptron 2y ago
>Skeptical of large corps They will surely get rid of Lina Khan almost instantly, who is one of the few people in a position of power who is actually poutting skepticism of large companies into action. Granted, there is a good chance that she would be fired either way if Harris had won.
kristopolous 2y ago
Name one, just one antiwar group that's pro Republican. They're all on the left, who was once again, excluded from participating. The Democrats think that by going harder right, the Republicans would stop calling them Communist. They don't realize the accusations are pulled out of thin air to begin with. The Democrats pushing harder right won't quiet the right wing bullshit machine.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  > The Democrats think that by going harder right, the Republicans would stop calling them Communist. Is that why there were all the college protests? I had no idea college kids did it hoping that the right would stop calling the left communists. Oh, wait, that __isn't__ why they did it.
  - kristopolous 2y ago
    If you think the Democrats who did what the students were protesting and sent in the cops to beat them up are on the same team, you're cooked. They sent armed people in to round them up and destroy things. The kids were protesting the Democrats because the Democrats have become the right wing party for those who dislike Trump. Foreign policy, economic policy, immigration, it's all right wing Multiple people in this very thread are claiming the Republicans have more left policies on these issue. Harris is a prosecutor cop. She also wanted to round up immigrants and toss them in camps: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-border-60-minutes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-borde... How is that left wing unless you're definition of left wing is "not Republican"?
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      While I disagree on your other points, I agree that traditional left wing is totally dead in this country. It's been co-opted by wacko identity politics. The politician closest to the traditional values of the left wing is ironically Trump.
      - 2y ago
yencabulator 2y ago
> - Pro free speech party: Dems -> Repub https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/media/trump-strip-tv-station-licenses-punish-media/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/media/trump-strip-tv-station-...
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  Those broadcast licenses are not a god given right to CBS. Did you see how CBS cut up Kamala's and Mike Johnson's quotes? The US government is under no obligation to CBS to give them airwaves to propagandize fake news.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    Have you ever seen Fox News?
NoLinkToMe 2y ago
What? Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, which pushed Iran to redevelop its nuclear program. Anti-war what? Trump signed the abraham accords with Saudi/Israeli appeasement, which Israeli intelligence notes pushed Hamas to attack on oct 7 and launch this war. Anti-war what? Trump withheld military aid from the Ukraine until Zelensky provided dirt on Joe Biden, which was critical for Ukraine's defense against Russia's aggression in Eastern Ukraine, leaving Ukraine weaker and invaded in full two years later, anti-war what? Trump has threatened to jail his opponents and go after the press, free speech what? Republicans have banned books, want to ban teachers and fire massive amounts of civil servants, free speech what? Elitist party, Trump is literally a billionaire who is supported by other billionaires, some of whom he will put in his cabinet. His biggest two policy positions are tax cuts for big corps (elitist) and deportations of the lowest class of people in the US. But Dems are elitist? I don't think there is much that they've switched on actually in the last election, other than Republicans convincing the working class that they're their party, something republicans have done on and off for many decades.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  This reads like TDS. Simple facts: Trump had way less war than now. Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen. Dick Cheney supporting the Dems is a simple way to look at it. Free speech: Random local Republicans have proposed all sorts of things, but Trump's circle is more pro free speech than the Dems right now. And Republicans as a party have stated free speech as a policy position. Whereas Dems state they want to "combat misinformation". They do not advocate free speech. There's even a clip circulating today where "The View" hosts call for cracking down on "misinformation" Trump has literally been brought to a courthouse and had his mugshot taken and you're talking about "jailing opponents"? Your arguments basically boil down to: "Trump bad, half country stupid" which is absolutely elitist.
  - NoLinkToMe 2y ago
    You've proven yourself incapable of a normal argument. If I tell you that Israel itself thinks that Trump's actions caused the Hamas attacks and Israeli's retaliation, you'll respond to that by saying 'but the attacks happened during Biden's presidency thus it's Biden who started the war', then I really don't know how to have a conversation with you. If you cite Yemen without understanding that the civil war started in 2014, and the cease-fire started in 2022 under Biden, as a reason for why Biden is pro-war, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you. If you think the guy who literally says journalists are the enemy of the people, the enemy within, and that that national guard or the military can resolve it, that he wouldn't mind if journalists get shot, that he'd take away broadcasting licenses, that he'll throw journalists in jail, that he'd bring the independent FCC under white house control, ban books, teachers and civil servants if they don't align with his views, is a guy who made free speech a genuine policy position, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you. If I give counterpoints to your arguments and you paraphrase that by me saying 'trump bad, half country stupid', which I've not said, and then go on to classify that as elitist when the ENTIRE cabinet is envisaged to be (billionaire) elites with two major policy proposals benefitting elites and deporting the opposite of elites, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you. So I won't.
culi 2y ago
Dems are the only ones pushing antitrust. The Republicans taking over is dominated by CEOs of large companies. How could you possibly say its Reps that are skeptical of large corps not dems. Antitrust is probably gonna die now because of this outcome Also, thinking that Republicans aren't just as, if not more, bought by the military industry complex is just sticking your head in the sand. The GOP is more adamant about funding Israel than Dems are
BryantD 2y ago
I am honestly unsure why the characterization of Trump as anti-war overlooks his stated desire to "order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on [Mexican] cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations." Whether or not you think that's justified, it is a very clear statement of intent to use military force on foreign territory, at our discretion. And that's a quote from 2023.
cryptonector 2y ago
Bill Clinton didn't have major wars, but did have wars. Bush Jr had major wars and the dems fought like hell against that, but then Obama had a bunch of wars and kept one major war going. Trump didn't have new wars and insisted on ending the one major war (which didn't happen until Biden). Biden has a major war. Harris got the endorsement of the Cheneys and some Bushes. There was no party switch. Both parties love the money flow that wards create. Trump is not a party; he's the only one against the wars.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  You just made a great case for voting for Trump.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Wars not wards. Pardon the typo.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
techfeathers 2y ago
I don't buy that Repubs are the free speech party (or even that Dems were the free speech party). Republican complaints about free speech were almost entirely self-serving and never on principal.(this is not to say judges or other conservative thought leaders may not be pro-free speech) but for the political parties: commitment to free speech comes from the tension between the two parties. Give either of them too much power and free speech is out the window. Also, pro war party is a weird thing to say. Repubs in 2000 wanted to be the aggressors. Defense to Ukraine has thus far been pretty bi-partisan.

croisillon 2y ago

Liz Cheney voted with the GOP for the four long Trump years, how is she not a Republican

psychlops 2y ago
It's become evident that Cheney's will wear whichever color funds more war.
_heimdall 2y ago
Because the partied seem to have largely flipped when it comes to platform and Cheney followed the platform rather than the party allegiance.

dtquad 2y ago

How are the repubs not pro-war? They are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine. They are pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.

_heimdall 2y ago
The republicans I know have pretty varying opinions on those two wars. One pretty common thread is that they don't want us involved though, regardless of which side of the wars they align with.
- philistine 2y ago
  Ultimately those opinions will not matter. The president has full control of the State department and will align with the autocrats who stroke his ego: Putin and Netanyahu. Expect the money to stop flowing to Ukraine, and to keep going to Israel, and try to divine a logic for that.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Thankfully the state department doesn't hold the purse strings, though the democratic party did so poorly that Congress may still be willing to approve whatever spending the Trump wants.
- TOMDM 2y ago
  Then call them what they are, isolationists not anti war then. Carrying water for Russia's invasion of Ukraine; opposing aid for Ukraine is incompatible.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Sure, you could call them isolation if you prefer. Many of the republicans I know sit in a gray area in between, they definitely don't want us involved but they also don't have a strong opinion on the wars either way and see them as someone else's fight. That definitely isn't the main narrative I see in the media, but I personally know very few republicans who care strongly about one side of either war. That view is a bit like a libertarian anti-war view in my opinion. Its antiwar without attempting to get involved in anyone else's business.
    - navigate8310 2y ago
      Basically questioning tax-money spendings
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  Trump is going to send more money and armaments to Israel and not one of them will object because he will abandon Ukraine and they’ll all hold that up as an amazing thing.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Maybe, at which point I expect their being pretty hypocritical. I wouldn't begin to say one side of either war is in the absolute right or wrong though. War is messy, terrible, and bloody. It'd never as simply as right vs wrong or good vs evil.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      When has hypocrisy ever caused self reflection when people are playing the team sport that is politics? It’s always “your hypocrisy is worse than my hypocrisy” because even if they admit the hypocrisy exists (not a given) they just chalk it up to “both sides.“ We’ve seen this song and dance for a decade straight.
- cglace 2y ago
  All of the Trump voters I know think we should obliterate Iran.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    Here's 1 that doesn't think that. Maybe you just don't know enough Trump voters?
    - cglace 2y ago
      I live in Georgia; my family is from South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida. Try again.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Well that's interesting. I live in a very red area and have never heard this. At best I could hear it said as a joke, I don't know anyone that would actually think we should do that.
cynicalpeace 2y ago
They are certainly more anti-war than the Dems right now
siffin 2y ago
They have managed to have themselves perceived as anti-war, which is an obvious untruth.
arandomusername 2y ago
True they are pro-israel, but so is most of the dems. It's the one topic that actually gets bipartisan support. repubs aren't pro russia. they are just anti-getting-involved in there.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  >repubs aren’t pro russia They sure are for the right price.
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    > repubs aren’t pro russia This only matter if we think that the Republican party still exists, and was not silently replaced by other party carrying its blood stained skin. Is GOP still alive? Is a serious question. I have a lot of doubts about the real independence of republicans in this situation. The man at charge is obviously pro Russia and the republicans can't do a s*t about this. They will be replaced one by one. Anything that would try will be pushed out of the road.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      GQP/MAGA is the party now. Old GOP was definitely swiftly executed. I heard Mitch McConnell called a RINO a few weeks ago. That says it all.
      - pvaldes 2y ago
        Is an interesting case in fact. In my opinion USA democracy is clearly into a transitional phase to became a monarchy. I would not bet money against Donald I becaming the first King of America. All ingredients are yet over the table. 1) Cult to the leader, Image printed on coins, posters, everywhere on TV and media. Fanatism 2) Religion serves the King. Divine intervention to justify power take. "God choose me in a divine mission to fix this mess" is a central part of the speech in every new monarch crowning. Trump is yet talking about that. 3) Exceptionalism and isolationalism, we are the best country and is cold and rainy out of my frontiers. Frontiers are very important for Kings as symbolic element of protection. 4) Extravagant behavior. Trump did all sort of outrageous things that would put anybody else in the jail, but got unscathed all the time. All kings do this. This is made to reinforce the idea of a special "superhuman" status. 4) Laws. This special status imply also that the law does not apply to the King and people will be carefully taught about that. 5) Killing competitors to the crown ("Hang Mike Pence" was metaphorical, but also works in a symbolic plane). 6) Wicht hunt behavior. As the King can't do wrong, scapegoats are required, normally on minorities. 7) Useful idiots. Extensive use of expendable pawns that are promised to enter the court, became famous, gain influence etc if they do a favor for the King. Those promises will never deliver. 8) Sucession. I would bet that the next elections will not have Trump as a frontman but a son of Trump will be the sure and only candidate. Every step will be taken to assure that not other has an opportunity inside the party. There will be a strong temptation and a lot of space to cheat in elections also. 9) And a component that is not still here, but I expect to see in the future is to disarm people that could pose a treat, weapon control but only for a part of the population. All Kings do this.
tekknik 2y ago
Boy what an over generalization. Most are anti palestine because Hamas is a terrorist. Sorry I won’t support terrorism and support what Israel is doing. I support Ukraine because I know what Russia needs Ukraine for. Do I want to see people shooting? No because I’ve been to war and seen how ugly it is. Sometimes you have to defend yourself though. I still voted for Trump.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  > Sorry I won’t support terrorism and support what Israel is doing. This just means you support State Terrorism instead of non-state terrorism. > Sometimes you have to defend yourself though. Unless you're Palestinian. In which case defending yourself isn't authorized. Just ask the West Bank residents being regularly killed by armed illegal settlers pre-October 7th how laying down their arms has worked out for them.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    I'm trying to follow your logic, seriously please help me. You are suggesting that murdering people at a music festival and kidnapping children and kidnapping elderly and beheading civilians is a form of defense against other people hurting other people in a different geographic region? Please, tell me I'm wrong and do tell me how you see things.
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      > You are suggesting that murdering people at a music festival and kidnapping children and kidnapping elderly and beheading civilians is a form of defense against other people hurting other people in a different geographic region? I'm suggesting murdering people at a music festival occupies the same space, morally, as bombing entire families with aviation ordnance. One of them is painted as wrong, and the other isn't, because state terrorism is tacitly approved in the Western mainstream information space....depending on the perpetrators. When Hamas (or Russia) does it, it's "kidnapping", when Israel does it, they are "detaining suspects". From August 2023 (before the Hamas attack) AP News was reporting Israel had 1,200 detainees without charges. Why aren't they called hostages? ( https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinians-west-bank-793a3b2a1ce8439d08756da8c63e5435 https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinia... ) The two regions are both enclaves of Palestine, engaged in a joint struggle for emancipation. There were 100+ Palestinians killed in the West Bank in 2022: ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63073541 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63073541 ) and 200+ killed in 2023 before the October 7th attack ( https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1139922 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1139922 ). Clearly disarmament and NOT being ruled by Hamas is not working for the West Bank Palestinians. I'm sure if you asked any of the various Palestinian militant groups, yes they are engaged in a joint defense of their people. After all, the primary purpose of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation was to try to capture enough Israelis to force a prisoner exchange and get their own people back (similar to snatching Gilad Shalit and trading just him for 1,000 Palestinians). They suffered from "catastrophic success" mixed with undisciplined follow-on echelons (Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well as others) who inflicted far more civilian damage than just a cross-border snatch & grab....and they are definitely paying for it in blood now.
beeboobaa6 2y ago
[flagged]
rcstank 2y ago
Anecdotally, I’ve seen many republicans be anti-Israel and anti-Palestine, anti-Ukraine and anti-Russia. Their stance is pro-America.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  Yup, me too.
dotancohen 2y ago
Arguably being pro-Israel is anti-war. Israel's current conflict is the direct result of several entities starting a war with her last October. Suggesting that Israel should not fight back is promoting the idea of war as a means of getting what one wants.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Nah, Americans aren't that dumb. We send billions and billions to Israel every year, for what? Most Americans want to stop being a blank check for them to bomb whoever and then get mad, deplete their resources, and ask for more when they get attacked back
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    I'm glad that you feel that way. You'll be relieved that those pushing the "Israel bombs whoever and then get mad" agenda was lying to you. We've been (we as in my family) absorbing rocket fire for literately years - hardly been bombing every time we get mad. It took something egregious - literally beheadings and burning of babies (I personally know at least two families whose babies were burned to death) - to ignite this war. My daughter's classmate was murdered in his home along with both his sisters and both their parents. My son's summer camp counselor was kidnapped, his body was later retrieved. Shall I go on? What would you have your country do under these circumstances? Your heart is in the right place. But you've been manipulated.
    - marxisttemp 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      > You'll be relieved that those pushing the "Israel bombs whoever and then get mad" agenda was lying to you. No they weren't. Absorbing bombs when you have a missile defense system that ensures zero to tens of casualties, then responding with the same bombs when you know they will cause hundreds to thousands of casualties is doing exactly what I said. No one lied to me. I saw the facts and saw my money being sent to people who think this is okay, and like every other sane American, I said it should stop, and soon it will. All of this was a decade ago, back when Israelis used to set up lawn chairs on hills overlooking Gaza and cheer as bombs dropped. Tell me how this was a lie too: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer... Look, all this aside, you're probably a nice guy. You're probably worried for your family.i get that. I've been there. But 20 years and trillions of dollars spent on wars that did nothing to secure us, nothing to change the region, taught me that fighting back isn't always the path to success. You have to fight right, and you have to fight smart too. The US had a ton of goodwill from the world after 9/11 and squandered it so bad that Trump, who has now been elected resoundingly twice as a Republican, said on stage, in front of tons of Republicans that Republican President Bush was one of the worst presidents and his wars were disastrous mistakes and we should have never gone. Cheney, who architected those wars, and his family, are now global pariahs basically. Lashing out and wasting money and causing more problems and expecting a wallet refill? I saw that for 2 decades, and I'm done with it here, and I'm done with paying for it somewhere else too
thehappypm 2y ago
The GOP would rather the Ukraine war end (probably with Russia winning).

JansjoFromIkea 2y ago

RE: "Skeptical of large corps" do you mean their voter base or their actions? Because I seriously doubt whoever is replacing Lina Khan is going to be more skeptical of large corporations

dtquad 2y ago
JD Vance said he supports the anti-US-big-tech campaign of Lina Khan and that he thinks she has a place in the new admin. They will most likely break up Google and Meta for "pushing the woke agenda" but are smart enough to hide behind Lina Khan's anti-US-big-tech arguments that has populist support on both wings of the political spectrum.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  This will clearly happen because Pence was so influential in Trump’s first term, and Trump also followed through on so much of his and/or his vice president’s claims in the first term.
  - stuckkeys 2y ago
    You cant be serious lol.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I read it as almost certainly sarcasm (usually when people use “clearly” like that, it’s sarcasm).
      - inemesitaffia 2y ago
        I disagree with him. Peter Thiel supported Trump before but the vice was from the religious part of the sector. Vance is Thiels man. And Theil wants to be a Supreme Court Judge.
        2y ago

MrBuddyCasino 2y ago

Trump doesn’t care about abortion at all, yet for some reason Dems think it‘ll be Handmaid‘s Tale. States can do what they want.

ks2048 2y ago
Trump doesn't care about anything but himself, of course. But the judges he appoints do. And if his first term is repeated, he'll again just appoint the far-right judges that republicans hand to him. You're right, some things will be left up to states and I think we'll see more state divisions and self-sorting of people among states. On abortion, it will be interesting to watch republicans fight over trying to push a nationwide ban. Trump is savvy and powerful enough to squash that, probably.
kzrdude 2y ago
It's more important to look at what Trump does than what he says. Because he says whatever he thinks people will like. He's a chronic liar, by the way. Trump did in fact enable the judges who changed the law on abortion.

_heimdall 2y ago

I'm surprised more people hadn't noticed this switch during this campaign cycle. It seemed pretty clear to me, especially coming off the heals of a pandemic response that saw the democratic party flip so dramatically to blindly trusting big pharma and reaching for law & order as a pandemic response strategy. The best explanation I heard recently was that Trump in 2016 made a play to pull working class Americans into the Republican party. The party basically clinched its teeth and looked the other way, knowing that they either accept the voters or risk a real problem. Since then the Republican party has largely embraced the working class while the Democratic party continues to favor more and more towards the rich voters and massive corporations, finishing off the full party flip.

dtquad 2y ago
>Since then the Republican party has largely embraced the working class while the Democratic party continues to favor more and more towards the rich voters and massive corporations, finishing off the full party flip. Insane to say this when Trump and Republicans want to lower taxes for the rich and even suggest "abolishing the IRS".
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Cutting taxes on the rich helps the rich, it doesn't directly hurt the working class. More importantly, Trump and the Republicans embracing the working class has everything to do with rhetoric and who they target for voting and very little to do with policies they actually enact. Most voters end up caring about what is said and pay little attention to what is done.
  - wholinator2 2y ago
    > it doesn't directly hurt the working class Until the programs and benefits that the working class relies on are cut because "who's gonna pay for it?!" And "we've gotta reduce the deficit!". Then the working class will be directly and painfully effected because they are the ones that need tax credits and Healthcare options and foodstamps and support! Who's gonna pay for it? The people that already have enough! I understand the human urge to hold on to everything you have. But when did we stop caring about contributing to a functioning society?

ks2048 2y ago

I think this could be correct if only look at what they say rather than what they do. We'll see if Republicans in control are anti-war, anti-elite, pro free speech, pro-working class, anti-large-corps, etc. I know where I'd place my bets on policies.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
[flagged]
- kubectl_h 2y ago
  > "I just don't see Trump being a warmonger, but Kamala, she very well could be." It's not Trump that will be the "warmonger", it's the people he empowers. Trump is a shallow personality -- all he wants is attention, he does not have an ideology. For the boring part of actually enacting policy he defers to supplicants and this time around his supplicants are more unserious and self-interested than the first time around. This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    > all he wants is attention, he does not have an ideology This is not demonstrably true. He's had a consistent ideology since the beginning- MAGA and now MAHA too. I used to think Trump was shallow, for maybe a few months in 2015. The problem with that is if you think Trump is shallow, it means all the people who voted for him and love him are stupid. In fact, you implied you think this: > This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack. Your operating philosophy cannot be that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Your point about supplicants can be equally applied to Kamala.
    - kubectl_h 2y ago
      > Your operating philosophy cannot be that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. I don't think people are stupid. I think they don't think things through. MAGA is not a coherent political policy. Project 2025 is at least soundly documented and is probably the set of policies we'll see out of this admin. I googled MAHA and it doesn't seem like a thing beyond a boilerplate website and twitter account nobody follows and some videos from RFK. Again, not a policy, just a platitude like MAGA and an unserious one at that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bitsandboots 2y ago

> Pro war I was surprised to see Trump not entertain much war during his last term but I don't agree. Both parties equally entertain war and I fear any Republican anti-war this time will be pro-Russia and further destabilize the world. > Working class party I think the voters see it that way and it's a real win for Republicans since they're the opposite and get away with it for who knows what reason > Pro free speech I've absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion > Skeptical of large corps I'd love for that to be true but I bet they'll be just fine with any large corp that helps them remain in control. And yes, the entire topic of religion has not only remained the same but perhaps gotten worse.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
> Both parties equally entertain war and I fear any Republican anti-war this time will be pro-Russia and further destabilize the world. Trump is emphatically anti-war and he's dragging the Republican party kicking and screaming to that position. Just look at his relatively low-war presidency and his rhetoric on war throughout the years. > I've absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion Free speech? The Dems are calling left and right for censorship. The only person that has stopped it is Elon Musk, now a vital facet of the Trump coalition. I have no idea how you can make the case the Dems are the free speech party. > I'd love for that to be true but I bet they'll be just fine with any large corp that helps them remain in control. Again, this is something that the MAGA types are dragging the Republicans kicking and screaming. MAGA abhors big pharma, whereas Dems trust it. Was the opposite in 2008 or even 2012. We like to discuss Trump so much, but a lot of this shift is actually the Dems moving their positions too.
- bitsandboots 2y ago
  I guess you've not been paying attention to MAGA types who equally as much want censorship and who are for any person, corporation, or government who will help them to further their goals on that front. I would love for "MAGA" to come to represent the genuinely good things that Trump said on the campaign trail for 2016, and none of the bad things are associated with the those who claim to be part of "MAGA", but fool me twice shame on me.

schmorptron 2y ago

>Skeptical of large corps They will surely get rid of Lina Khan almost instantly, who is one of the few people in a position of power who is actually poutting skepticism of large companies into action. Granted, there is a good chance that she would be fired either way if Harris had won.

kristopolous 2y ago

Name one, just one antiwar group that's pro Republican. They're all on the left, who was once again, excluded from participating. The Democrats think that by going harder right, the Republicans would stop calling them Communist. They don't realize the accusations are pulled out of thin air to begin with. The Democrats pushing harder right won't quiet the right wing bullshit machine.

dgfitz 2y ago
> The Democrats think that by going harder right, the Republicans would stop calling them Communist. Is that why there were all the college protests? I had no idea college kids did it hoping that the right would stop calling the left communists. Oh, wait, that __isn't__ why they did it.
- kristopolous 2y ago
  If you think the Democrats who did what the students were protesting and sent in the cops to beat them up are on the same team, you're cooked. They sent armed people in to round them up and destroy things. The kids were protesting the Democrats because the Democrats have become the right wing party for those who dislike Trump. Foreign policy, economic policy, immigration, it's all right wing Multiple people in this very thread are claiming the Republicans have more left policies on these issue. Harris is a prosecutor cop. She also wanted to round up immigrants and toss them in camps: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-border-60-minutes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-borde... How is that left wing unless you're definition of left wing is "not Republican"?
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    While I disagree on your other points, I agree that traditional left wing is totally dead in this country. It's been co-opted by wacko identity politics. The politician closest to the traditional values of the left wing is ironically Trump.
    - 2y ago

yencabulator 2y ago

> - Pro free speech party: Dems -> Repub https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/media/trump-strip-tv-station-licenses-punish-media/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/media/trump-strip-tv-station-...

cynicalpeace 2y ago
Those broadcast licenses are not a god given right to CBS. Did you see how CBS cut up Kamala's and Mike Johnson's quotes? The US government is under no obligation to CBS to give them airwaves to propagandize fake news.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Have you ever seen Fox News?

NoLinkToMe 2y ago

What? Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, which pushed Iran to redevelop its nuclear program. Anti-war what? Trump signed the abraham accords with Saudi/Israeli appeasement, which Israeli intelligence notes pushed Hamas to attack on oct 7 and launch this war. Anti-war what? Trump withheld military aid from the Ukraine until Zelensky provided dirt on Joe Biden, which was critical for Ukraine's defense against Russia's aggression in Eastern Ukraine, leaving Ukraine weaker and invaded in full two years later, anti-war what? Trump has threatened to jail his opponents and go after the press, free speech what? Republicans have banned books, want to ban teachers and fire massive amounts of civil servants, free speech what? Elitist party, Trump is literally a billionaire who is supported by other billionaires, some of whom he will put in his cabinet. His biggest two policy positions are tax cuts for big corps (elitist) and deportations of the lowest class of people in the US. But Dems are elitist? I don't think there is much that they've switched on actually in the last election, other than Republicans convincing the working class that they're their party, something republicans have done on and off for many decades.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
This reads like TDS. Simple facts: Trump had way less war than now. Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen. Dick Cheney supporting the Dems is a simple way to look at it. Free speech: Random local Republicans have proposed all sorts of things, but Trump's circle is more pro free speech than the Dems right now. And Republicans as a party have stated free speech as a policy position. Whereas Dems state they want to "combat misinformation". They do not advocate free speech. There's even a clip circulating today where "The View" hosts call for cracking down on "misinformation" Trump has literally been brought to a courthouse and had his mugshot taken and you're talking about "jailing opponents"? Your arguments basically boil down to: "Trump bad, half country stupid" which is absolutely elitist.
- NoLinkToMe 2y ago
  You've proven yourself incapable of a normal argument. If I tell you that Israel itself thinks that Trump's actions caused the Hamas attacks and Israeli's retaliation, you'll respond to that by saying 'but the attacks happened during Biden's presidency thus it's Biden who started the war', then I really don't know how to have a conversation with you. If you cite Yemen without understanding that the civil war started in 2014, and the cease-fire started in 2022 under Biden, as a reason for why Biden is pro-war, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you. If you think the guy who literally says journalists are the enemy of the people, the enemy within, and that that national guard or the military can resolve it, that he wouldn't mind if journalists get shot, that he'd take away broadcasting licenses, that he'll throw journalists in jail, that he'd bring the independent FCC under white house control, ban books, teachers and civil servants if they don't align with his views, is a guy who made free speech a genuine policy position, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you. If I give counterpoints to your arguments and you paraphrase that by me saying 'trump bad, half country stupid', which I've not said, and then go on to classify that as elitist when the ENTIRE cabinet is envisaged to be (billionaire) elites with two major policy proposals benefitting elites and deporting the opposite of elites, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you. So I won't.

culi 2y ago

Dems are the only ones pushing antitrust. The Republicans taking over is dominated by CEOs of large companies. How could you possibly say its Reps that are skeptical of large corps not dems. Antitrust is probably gonna die now because of this outcome Also, thinking that Republicans aren't just as, if not more, bought by the military industry complex is just sticking your head in the sand. The GOP is more adamant about funding Israel than Dems are

BryantD 2y ago

I am honestly unsure why the characterization of Trump as anti-war overlooks his stated desire to "order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on [Mexican] cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations." Whether or not you think that's justified, it is a very clear statement of intent to use military force on foreign territory, at our discretion. And that's a quote from 2023.

cryptonector 2y ago

Bill Clinton didn't have major wars, but did have wars. Bush Jr had major wars and the dems fought like hell against that, but then Obama had a bunch of wars and kept one major war going. Trump didn't have new wars and insisted on ending the one major war (which didn't happen until Biden). Biden has a major war. Harris got the endorsement of the Cheneys and some Bushes. There was no party switch. Both parties love the money flow that wards create. Trump is not a party; he's the only one against the wars.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
You just made a great case for voting for Trump.
cryptonector 2y ago
Wars not wards. Pardon the typo.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

techfeathers 2y ago

I don't buy that Repubs are the free speech party (or even that Dems were the free speech party). Republican complaints about free speech were almost entirely self-serving and never on principal.(this is not to say judges or other conservative thought leaders may not be pro-free speech) but for the political parties: commitment to free speech comes from the tension between the two parties. Give either of them too much power and free speech is out the window. Also, pro war party is a weird thing to say. Repubs in 2000 wanted to be the aggressors. Defense to Ukraine has thus far been pretty bi-partisan.